I can live with this. Let's give it a try in WebKit and see how well it works.
Simon
On Jul 14, 2010, at 3:26 am, Kenneth Christiansen wrote:
> That sounds fine with me. Does any of you other guys disagree with the renaming?
>
> Kenneth
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:34:00 +0200, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have been thinking about this some more and I am no longer convinced
>>>> the complexity is justified. I think using closures is fine. For other
>>>> languages the bindings can be slightly modified to return a token instead or
>>>> something. But there's no need to make the ECMAScript variant more complex
>>>> as well, especially since not all implementations will have various
>>>> languages implementing these bindings, and also since the dominant use of
>>>> this API will be in ECMAScript.
>>>
>>> I'm not keen on having to special-case generated code, and, in WebKit, we
>>> compile Objective-C bindings for many of the IDL interfaces, and see people
>>> use them fairly extensively in applications that embed WebKit.
>>>
>>> Can you re-state your proposal so we're all on the same page?
>>
>> My proposal is that we do the renaming but otherwise keep the specification
>> as-is:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#the-stylemedia-interface
>>
>> Making it more complex just to suit the non-ECMAScript case does not seem
>> worth it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> Technical Lead / Senior Software Engineer
> Qt Labs Americas, Nokia Technology Institute, INdT
> Phone +55 81 8895 6002 / E-mail kenneth.christiansen at openbossa.org